>One only need look at the samples that were used at SIGGraph to see their
>market. They showed, for instance, the Great Wall of China. I'd like to see
>someone model the Great Wall using VRML - including the people walking on
>it ;-)
quite eight, and dehavior would be that much more of a problem in VRML where as
in QTVR you'd just embed a movie in the scene...
>Opinion: Apple made a smart move here. Business, the people with real
>money, are more interested in selling reality to people. Consider the recent
>request to get entertainment companies into VRML. I would rather walk
>through a QTVR version of a movie set than a VRML model.
gee this is the first time i herd anyone mention "smart," "Apple" and
"business" in the same sentence..
>On the other hand, QTVR cannot provide a walkthrough of a space station.
>VRML can. Furthermore, VRML can esadily be turned into QTVR. All (!!!) we
>need is a renderer to take VRML and turn it into QTVR. What would be really
>useful is the ability to look at QTVR inside a VRML world (someone's alesady
>suggested that). This raises all sorts of licencing issues, but it would be
>really great. For example, you could build a VRML space/time warp, that was a
>long corridor with doors off into difserent places and times. Get the picture.
>I'd love to see that. It would be the most amazing thing. It would also
>be a very valuable way of doing home shopping. The mall is a VRML world
>but the sale items are QTVR movies.
It would be nice to see the *REAL* object in QTVR rather than a polymesh of the
same thing...
>Another thing QTVR can't directly do: Visualize data.
>Another issue. QTVR is less suitable for sending around on the web. QTVR
>files are likely to be large if the author wants a good VR experience,
>particularly in complex worlds where many many views need to be sent (this
>is for object-centered QTVR, not viewer centered).
but if the QTVR was of a small "Object" Don't forget that QTVR is not just
Panoramics but the Object movies... they are harder to make and will be s
little more rare, but are pretty darn cool!
>> > hey don't get me wrong, i LIKE QTVR.
>>
>> I hate it, the idea actually. I find it too cheap and useless.
>
>I like it. Very very good idea. Just not the whole solution.
right-o
>> Therefore I don't think that support for such stuff as QTVR
>> is needed or should be considered.
>
>Narrow minded view. I think that it would be s muge sales pitch if QTVR
>got in. It does add something to the spec, so it should be an extension
>ofserred. I guess I'd just love to see it.
i think it would be great as well
>Finally, replying to something else that's been said, QTVR is a lot more
>than slapping a texture map on the inside of a cylinder. A lot more.
yes, don't forget the object movies, i mean imagine trying to rotate an object
in VRML as compared to a QTVR Object movie, there is a small movie which had
some kind of Robot toy, like some silly powerRanger thing, but the idea if
pushing something Photoesalistic (because it is a photo) around in realtime has
something to be said for.
Aloha,
Alex